What are the possible values of these letters?











up vote
18
down vote

favorite
6












Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).



Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$

Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?



I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 13




    Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
    – yurnero
    Nov 14 at 14:22






  • 3




    Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
    – lulu
    Nov 14 at 14:28








  • 4




    $2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
    – ab123
    Nov 14 at 14:39








  • 3




    For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
    – Dan
    Nov 15 at 0:13






  • 1




    Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
    – PJTraill
    Nov 15 at 10:51















up vote
18
down vote

favorite
6












Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).



Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$

Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?



I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 13




    Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
    – yurnero
    Nov 14 at 14:22






  • 3




    Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
    – lulu
    Nov 14 at 14:28








  • 4




    $2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
    – ab123
    Nov 14 at 14:39








  • 3




    For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
    – Dan
    Nov 15 at 0:13






  • 1




    Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
    – PJTraill
    Nov 15 at 10:51













up vote
18
down vote

favorite
6









up vote
18
down vote

favorite
6






6





Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).



Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$

Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?



I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.










share|cite|improve this question















Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).



Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$

Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?



I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.







algebra-precalculus






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 14 at 14:22









Especially Lime

20.9k22655




20.9k22655










asked Nov 14 at 14:13









Heroic24

1327




1327








  • 13




    Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
    – yurnero
    Nov 14 at 14:22






  • 3




    Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
    – lulu
    Nov 14 at 14:28








  • 4




    $2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
    – ab123
    Nov 14 at 14:39








  • 3




    For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
    – Dan
    Nov 15 at 0:13






  • 1




    Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
    – PJTraill
    Nov 15 at 10:51














  • 13




    Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
    – yurnero
    Nov 14 at 14:22






  • 3




    Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
    – lulu
    Nov 14 at 14:28








  • 4




    $2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
    – ab123
    Nov 14 at 14:39








  • 3




    For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
    – Dan
    Nov 15 at 0:13






  • 1




    Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
    – PJTraill
    Nov 15 at 10:51








13




13




Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
Nov 14 at 14:22




Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
Nov 14 at 14:22




3




3




Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
Nov 14 at 14:28






Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
Nov 14 at 14:28






4




4




$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
Nov 14 at 14:39






$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
Nov 14 at 14:39






3




3




For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:13




For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:13




1




1




Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:51




Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:51










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
22
down vote













Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :



$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$

Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1



Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.



Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.



Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that



$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$



Removing identical summands:



$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$

Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$



Solved!






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




AllirionX is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 7




    I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
    – PJTraill
    Nov 14 at 21:51








  • 1




    One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
    – PJTraill
    Nov 14 at 22:01






  • 1




    Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
    – PJTraill
    Nov 15 at 10:34












  • Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
    – AllirionX
    Nov 15 at 12:11


















up vote
13
down vote













A start, on my phone.



Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$



Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.



Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.



Another tack:



Clear fractions to get



$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$



or



$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$



or



$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.



Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.



Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.



I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    10
    down vote













    ${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.



    So it looks like the solution is not unique.



    (Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).






    share|cite|improve this answer



















    • 2




      And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
      – Henry
      Nov 15 at 1:14




















    up vote
    9
    down vote













    Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are



    [2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]



    [2, 3, 7, 47, 395]



    [2, 3, 11, 23, 31]



    Maple code:



    f:= proc(S) local R;
    R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
    convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
    end proc:
    for jj from 2 to 3 do
    for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
    lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
    for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
    if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
    for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
    nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
    if nn::integer and nn > mm then
    printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
    fi
    od od od od:





    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 2




      As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
      – eyeballfrog
      Nov 15 at 2:49






    • 1




      For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
      – Robert Israel
      Nov 15 at 13:58




















    up vote
    4
    down vote













    Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$



    Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
    also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$



    In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code



    for j in range(2, 4):
    for k in range(j+1, 100):
    for l in range(k+1, 100):
    for m in range(l+1, 100):
    for n in range(m+1, 100):
    if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
    print(j, k , l , m , n)





    share|cite|improve this answer



















    • 3




      You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:.
      – Dan
      Nov 15 at 0:03










    • @Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
      – ab123
      Nov 15 at 7:03


















    up vote
    3
    down vote













    Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.



    What is J?



    If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.



    If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.



    OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.



    So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.



    What is K?



    Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.




    • If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.


      • If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.

      • But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.

      • Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.



    • If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.


      • If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.

      • But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.

      • So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.




    Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.



    What is L?



    From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:





    • $J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.


    • $J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.


    • $J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.


    • $J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.


    • $J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.


    Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.



    What is M?



    If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.



    What is N?



    If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.



    $$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$



    $$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$



    $$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$



    $$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$



    $$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$



    All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.



    Brute force



    A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.



    from fractions import Fraction

    MAX_M = 1000000

    for J in range(2, 4):
    for K in range(J + 1, 7):
    for L in range(K + 1, 18):
    for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
    N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
    N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
    if N2 != 0:
    N = Fraction(N1, N2)
    if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
    print(J, K, L, M, N)


    This gives three solutions:




    • (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)

    • (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)

    • (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)


    Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998315%2fwhat-are-the-possible-values-of-these-letters%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      22
      down vote













      Induction could lead you to the answer.
      The equation is :



      $$
      frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
      $$

      Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1



      Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.



      Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
      Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.



      Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that



      $$
      frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
      $$



      Removing identical summands:



      $$
      frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
      $$

      Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
      $$
      x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
      $$



      Solved!






      share|cite|improve this answer










      New contributor




      AllirionX is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.














      • 7




        I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
        – PJTraill
        Nov 14 at 21:51








      • 1




        One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
        – PJTraill
        Nov 14 at 22:01






      • 1




        Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
        – PJTraill
        Nov 15 at 10:34












      • Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
        – AllirionX
        Nov 15 at 12:11















      up vote
      22
      down vote













      Induction could lead you to the answer.
      The equation is :



      $$
      frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
      $$

      Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1



      Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.



      Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
      Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.



      Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that



      $$
      frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
      $$



      Removing identical summands:



      $$
      frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
      $$

      Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
      $$
      x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
      $$



      Solved!






      share|cite|improve this answer










      New contributor




      AllirionX is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.














      • 7




        I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
        – PJTraill
        Nov 14 at 21:51








      • 1




        One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
        – PJTraill
        Nov 14 at 22:01






      • 1




        Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
        – PJTraill
        Nov 15 at 10:34












      • Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
        – AllirionX
        Nov 15 at 12:11













      up vote
      22
      down vote










      up vote
      22
      down vote









      Induction could lead you to the answer.
      The equation is :



      $$
      frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
      $$

      Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1



      Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.



      Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
      Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.



      Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that



      $$
      frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
      $$



      Removing identical summands:



      $$
      frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
      $$

      Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
      $$
      x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
      $$



      Solved!






      share|cite|improve this answer










      New contributor




      AllirionX is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      Induction could lead you to the answer.
      The equation is :



      $$
      frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
      $$

      Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1



      Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.



      Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
      Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.



      Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that



      $$
      frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
      $$



      Removing identical summands:



      $$
      frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
      $$

      Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
      $$
      x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
      $$



      Solved!







      share|cite|improve this answer










      New contributor




      AllirionX is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Nov 15 at 12:06





















      New contributor




      AllirionX is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered Nov 14 at 18:34









      AllirionX

      3213




      3213




      New contributor




      AllirionX is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      AllirionX is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      AllirionX is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      • 7




        I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
        – PJTraill
        Nov 14 at 21:51








      • 1




        One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
        – PJTraill
        Nov 14 at 22:01






      • 1




        Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
        – PJTraill
        Nov 15 at 10:34












      • Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
        – AllirionX
        Nov 15 at 12:11














      • 7




        I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
        – PJTraill
        Nov 14 at 21:51








      • 1




        One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
        – PJTraill
        Nov 14 at 22:01






      • 1




        Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
        – PJTraill
        Nov 15 at 10:34












      • Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
        – AllirionX
        Nov 15 at 12:11








      7




      7




      I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
      – PJTraill
      Nov 14 at 21:51






      I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
      – PJTraill
      Nov 14 at 21:51






      1




      1




      One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
      – PJTraill
      Nov 14 at 22:01




      One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
      – PJTraill
      Nov 14 at 22:01




      1




      1




      Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
      – PJTraill
      Nov 15 at 10:34






      Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
      – PJTraill
      Nov 15 at 10:34














      Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
      – AllirionX
      Nov 15 at 12:11




      Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
      – AllirionX
      Nov 15 at 12:11










      up vote
      13
      down vote













      A start, on my phone.



      Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$



      Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.



      Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
      You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.



      Another tack:



      Clear fractions to get



      $klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$



      or



      $klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$



      or



      $j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.



      Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
      (and similarly for the others)
      so that j is relatively prime to the others.



      Therefore all the variables are
      pairwise relatively prime.



      I'll leave it at this since
      that's all I can think of
      lying in bed.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        13
        down vote













        A start, on my phone.



        Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$



        Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.



        Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
        You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.



        Another tack:



        Clear fractions to get



        $klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$



        or



        $klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$



        or



        $j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.



        Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
        (and similarly for the others)
        so that j is relatively prime to the others.



        Therefore all the variables are
        pairwise relatively prime.



        I'll leave it at this since
        that's all I can think of
        lying in bed.






        share|cite|improve this answer























          up vote
          13
          down vote










          up vote
          13
          down vote









          A start, on my phone.



          Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$



          Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.



          Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
          You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.



          Another tack:



          Clear fractions to get



          $klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$



          or



          $klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$



          or



          $j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.



          Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
          (and similarly for the others)
          so that j is relatively prime to the others.



          Therefore all the variables are
          pairwise relatively prime.



          I'll leave it at this since
          that's all I can think of
          lying in bed.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          A start, on my phone.



          Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$



          Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.



          Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
          You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.



          Another tack:



          Clear fractions to get



          $klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$



          or



          $klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$



          or



          $j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.



          Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
          (and similarly for the others)
          so that j is relatively prime to the others.



          Therefore all the variables are
          pairwise relatively prime.



          I'll leave it at this since
          that's all I can think of
          lying in bed.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 14 at 14:43









          marty cohen

          71.3k546123




          71.3k546123






















              up vote
              10
              down vote













              ${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.



              So it looks like the solution is not unique.



              (Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).






              share|cite|improve this answer



















              • 2




                And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
                – Henry
                Nov 15 at 1:14

















              up vote
              10
              down vote













              ${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.



              So it looks like the solution is not unique.



              (Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).






              share|cite|improve this answer



















              • 2




                And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
                – Henry
                Nov 15 at 1:14















              up vote
              10
              down vote










              up vote
              10
              down vote









              ${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.



              So it looks like the solution is not unique.



              (Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).






              share|cite|improve this answer














              ${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.



              So it looks like the solution is not unique.



              (Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Nov 15 at 15:19









              costrom

              4061518




              4061518










              answered Nov 14 at 15:26









              gandalf61

              7,177523




              7,177523








              • 2




                And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
                – Henry
                Nov 15 at 1:14
















              • 2




                And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
                – Henry
                Nov 15 at 1:14










              2




              2




              And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
              – Henry
              Nov 15 at 1:14






              And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
              – Henry
              Nov 15 at 1:14












              up vote
              9
              down vote













              Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are



              [2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]



              [2, 3, 7, 47, 395]



              [2, 3, 11, 23, 31]



              Maple code:



              f:= proc(S) local R;
              R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
              convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
              end proc:
              for jj from 2 to 3 do
              for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
              lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
              for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
              if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
              for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
              nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
              if nn::integer and nn > mm then
              printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
              fi
              od od od od:





              share|cite|improve this answer

















              • 2




                As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
                – eyeballfrog
                Nov 15 at 2:49






              • 1




                For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
                – Robert Israel
                Nov 15 at 13:58

















              up vote
              9
              down vote













              Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are



              [2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]



              [2, 3, 7, 47, 395]



              [2, 3, 11, 23, 31]



              Maple code:



              f:= proc(S) local R;
              R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
              convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
              end proc:
              for jj from 2 to 3 do
              for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
              lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
              for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
              if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
              for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
              nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
              if nn::integer and nn > mm then
              printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
              fi
              od od od od:





              share|cite|improve this answer

















              • 2




                As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
                – eyeballfrog
                Nov 15 at 2:49






              • 1




                For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
                – Robert Israel
                Nov 15 at 13:58















              up vote
              9
              down vote










              up vote
              9
              down vote









              Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are



              [2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]



              [2, 3, 7, 47, 395]



              [2, 3, 11, 23, 31]



              Maple code:



              f:= proc(S) local R;
              R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
              convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
              end proc:
              for jj from 2 to 3 do
              for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
              lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
              for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
              if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
              for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
              nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
              if nn::integer and nn > mm then
              printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
              fi
              od od od od:





              share|cite|improve this answer












              Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are



              [2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]



              [2, 3, 7, 47, 395]



              [2, 3, 11, 23, 31]



              Maple code:



              f:= proc(S) local R;
              R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
              convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
              end proc:
              for jj from 2 to 3 do
              for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
              lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
              for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
              if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
              for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
              nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
              if nn::integer and nn > mm then
              printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
              fi
              od od od od:






              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Nov 14 at 14:57









              Robert Israel

              313k23206452




              313k23206452








              • 2




                As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
                – eyeballfrog
                Nov 15 at 2:49






              • 1




                For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
                – Robert Israel
                Nov 15 at 13:58
















              • 2




                As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
                – eyeballfrog
                Nov 15 at 2:49






              • 1




                For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
                – Robert Israel
                Nov 15 at 13:58










              2




              2




              As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
              – eyeballfrog
              Nov 15 at 2:49




              As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
              – eyeballfrog
              Nov 15 at 2:49




              1




              1




              For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
              – Robert Israel
              Nov 15 at 13:58






              For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
              – Robert Israel
              Nov 15 at 13:58












              up vote
              4
              down vote













              Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$



              Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
              also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$



              In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code



              for j in range(2, 4):
              for k in range(j+1, 100):
              for l in range(k+1, 100):
              for m in range(l+1, 100):
              for n in range(m+1, 100):
              if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
              print(j, k , l , m , n)





              share|cite|improve this answer



















              • 3




                You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:.
                – Dan
                Nov 15 at 0:03










              • @Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
                – ab123
                Nov 15 at 7:03















              up vote
              4
              down vote













              Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$



              Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
              also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$



              In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code



              for j in range(2, 4):
              for k in range(j+1, 100):
              for l in range(k+1, 100):
              for m in range(l+1, 100):
              for n in range(m+1, 100):
              if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
              print(j, k , l , m , n)





              share|cite|improve this answer



















              • 3




                You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:.
                – Dan
                Nov 15 at 0:03










              • @Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
                – ab123
                Nov 15 at 7:03













              up vote
              4
              down vote










              up vote
              4
              down vote









              Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$



              Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
              also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$



              In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code



              for j in range(2, 4):
              for k in range(j+1, 100):
              for l in range(k+1, 100):
              for m in range(l+1, 100):
              for n in range(m+1, 100):
              if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
              print(j, k , l , m , n)





              share|cite|improve this answer














              Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$



              Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
              also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$



              In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code



              for j in range(2, 4):
              for k in range(j+1, 100):
              for l in range(k+1, 100):
              for m in range(l+1, 100):
              for n in range(m+1, 100):
              if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
              print(j, k , l , m , n)






              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Nov 15 at 7:04

























              answered Nov 14 at 14:45









              ab123

              1,589421




              1,589421








              • 3




                You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:.
                – Dan
                Nov 15 at 0:03










              • @Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
                – ab123
                Nov 15 at 7:03














              • 3




                You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:.
                – Dan
                Nov 15 at 0:03










              • @Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
                – ab123
                Nov 15 at 7:03








              3




              3




              You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:.
              – Dan
              Nov 15 at 0:03




              You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:.
              – Dan
              Nov 15 at 0:03












              @Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
              – ab123
              Nov 15 at 7:03




              @Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
              – ab123
              Nov 15 at 7:03










              up vote
              3
              down vote













              Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.



              What is J?



              If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.



              If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.



              OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.



              So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.



              What is K?



              Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.




              • If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.


                • If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.

                • But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.

                • Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.



              • If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.


                • If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.

                • But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.

                • So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.




              Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.



              What is L?



              From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:





              • $J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.


              • $J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.


              • $J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.


              • $J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.


              • $J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.


              Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.



              What is M?



              If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.



              What is N?



              If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.



              $$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$



              $$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$



              $$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$



              $$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$



              $$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$



              All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.



              Brute force



              A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.



              from fractions import Fraction

              MAX_M = 1000000

              for J in range(2, 4):
              for K in range(J + 1, 7):
              for L in range(K + 1, 18):
              for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
              N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
              N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
              if N2 != 0:
              N = Fraction(N1, N2)
              if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
              print(J, K, L, M, N)


              This gives three solutions:




              • (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)

              • (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)

              • (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)


              Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                3
                down vote













                Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.



                What is J?



                If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.



                If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.



                OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.



                So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.



                What is K?



                Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.




                • If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.


                  • If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.

                  • But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.

                  • Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.



                • If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.


                  • If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.

                  • But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.

                  • So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.




                Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.



                What is L?



                From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:





                • $J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.


                • $J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.


                • $J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.


                • $J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.


                • $J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.


                Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.



                What is M?



                If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.



                What is N?



                If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.



                $$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$



                $$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$



                $$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$



                $$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$



                $$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$



                All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.



                Brute force



                A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.



                from fractions import Fraction

                MAX_M = 1000000

                for J in range(2, 4):
                for K in range(J + 1, 7):
                for L in range(K + 1, 18):
                for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
                N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
                N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
                if N2 != 0:
                N = Fraction(N1, N2)
                if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
                print(J, K, L, M, N)


                This gives three solutions:




                • (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)

                • (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)

                • (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)


                Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote









                  Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.



                  What is J?



                  If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.



                  If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.



                  OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.



                  So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.



                  What is K?



                  Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.




                  • If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.


                    • If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.

                    • But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.

                    • Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.



                  • If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.


                    • If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.

                    • But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.

                    • So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.




                  Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.



                  What is L?



                  From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:





                  • $J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.


                  • $J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.


                  • $J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.


                  • $J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.


                  • $J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.


                  Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.



                  What is M?



                  If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.



                  What is N?



                  If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.



                  $$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$



                  $$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$



                  $$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$



                  $$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$



                  $$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$



                  All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.



                  Brute force



                  A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.



                  from fractions import Fraction

                  MAX_M = 1000000

                  for J in range(2, 4):
                  for K in range(J + 1, 7):
                  for L in range(K + 1, 18):
                  for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
                  N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
                  N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
                  if N2 != 0:
                  N = Fraction(N1, N2)
                  if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
                  print(J, K, L, M, N)


                  This gives three solutions:




                  • (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)

                  • (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)

                  • (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)


                  Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.



                  What is J?



                  If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.



                  If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.



                  OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.



                  So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.



                  What is K?



                  Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.




                  • If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.


                    • If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.

                    • But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.

                    • Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.



                  • If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.


                    • If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.

                    • But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.

                    • So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.




                  Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.



                  What is L?



                  From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:





                  • $J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.


                  • $J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.


                  • $J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.


                  • $J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.


                  • $J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.


                  Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.



                  What is M?



                  If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.



                  What is N?



                  If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.



                  $$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$



                  $$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$



                  $$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$



                  $$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$



                  $$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$



                  All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.



                  Brute force



                  A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.



                  from fractions import Fraction

                  MAX_M = 1000000

                  for J in range(2, 4):
                  for K in range(J + 1, 7):
                  for L in range(K + 1, 18):
                  for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
                  N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
                  N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
                  if N2 != 0:
                  N = Fraction(N1, N2)
                  if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
                  print(J, K, L, M, N)


                  This gives three solutions:




                  • (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)

                  • (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)

                  • (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)


                  Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 15 at 5:03









                  Dan

                  4,12511416




                  4,12511416






























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded



















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998315%2fwhat-are-the-possible-values-of-these-letters%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Список кардиналов, возведённых папой римским Каликстом III

                      Deduzione

                      Mysql.sock missing - “Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket”